All Things Digital

Well, here’s a good reason not to write off Joost quite yet: When the London-based company officially debuts its new Web-based service in mid-October, it will have some pretty hot content with its half-dozen seasons of the former NBC hit, “Friends.”

Also, there will finally be no more irksome plug-ins.

In other words, anyone with an Internet connection can watch streaming television shows and movies on Joost, with advertising embedded in various forms.

There will also be social-networking elements–you can see what your friends watch and form groups, make comments with cool tools and the rest of that sort of thing.

While all this is not going to make up for the lost time the online video service has wasted with its annoying P2P-based desktop client download, going to a Web-based, all-Flash service with more robust content is certainly the right way to stop rival service Hulu from continuing to clean Joost’s clock.

Joost was first out of the gate last year with a giant slug of funding, fancy founders (Janus Friis and Niklas Zennström, who were also founders of Web phenoms Skype and Kazaa) and blue-chip investors (Sequoia Capital, Index Ventures, as well as CBS, Viacom and wealthy Hong Kong investor Li Ka-shing).

In any case, Hulu quickly grabbed the lead in terms of press praise (I ate my words even!), ease-of-use and, most importantly, user numbers.

In the most recent stats, for example, Hulu had more than 100 million monthly video streams and 3.3 million unique monthly visitors. (But since Joost has just soft-launched its new Web-only service, it’s hard to make comparisons just yet, although the competition is now clearly afoot!)

And, although it has been written off by some, I do not think it is too late for Joost.

First, it is still early in the premium online video game.

Second, success will depend on having increasing amounts of quality content. And Joost–with CBS, Warner Bros., Sony and other unusual content like anime–certainly can keep up with Hulu’s programs from its partner parents, News Corp. (News Corp. is the owner of Dow Jones and this Web site) and NBC Universal.

Lastly, despite decent consumer uptake, the business is still in its nascent popcorn-stand stage of revenue and profit generation.

And while spending too much money and having too many employees did not help Joost, it seems as though CEO Mike Volpi has finally gotten control of the start-up beast.

Thus, while in London this week, I stopped in at the offices of Joost (near the famed King’s Cross train station, where, of course–to no avail–I tried to make it through the wall at Platform 9 3/4!) to chat with Volpi about all the changes at the much-hyped company.

Here’s a longish video, in which the always-well-turned-out former Cisco exec talks about all that and more:

OK, you might attribute it to being super-bored in the holiday doldrums. But, for some reason I cannot explain, I find myself strangely drawn to the videos being made about the start-up of Seesmic, the new video-sharing service that is being created by European entrepreneur Loïc Le Meur.

Up on his own loic.tv channel on YouTube, everything from checking out the company digs to working on a logo to hiring are on display, and Le Meur encourages community comments about the company’s direction. The videos are currently up to Day 57.

It’s a shameless gimmick, to be sure, but Le Meur’s French accent grows on you, and it is an interesting way to market your company, for certain (AllThingsD.com and D: All Things Digital only did one staff BBQ and Rodeo video, which is seen below).

While Seesmic is described in a lot of ways–video Twitter, video social network, video sharing tool are some examples–Seesmic’s obviously practicing what it preaches here: video blabbing that is often compelling.

(Here is a screen shot of what Seesmic looks like, which you can click on to make bigger.)

To get it all going, Le Meur (who also organizes the Le Web conference in Paris, which just took place) got a bunch of high-profile angels like former AOL head Steve Case, investor Ron Conway, FON founder Martin Varsavsky and Skype founders Niklas Zennström and Janus Friis, as well as many others, to pony up millions for Seesmic’s funding.

He and his family moved to San Francisco this past summer, and he has been ferreting away ever since on the service, which will officially debut in early spring of 2008.

Here’s Seesmic’s latest, a what-are-you-doing-for-the-holidays video of its employees:

Then again, I also kind of like the flip side–the mostly hysterical, sometimes line-crossing attack review of Seesmic by Loren Feldman of 1938 Media. Actually, although Feldman trashes Le Meur’s effort, it is just the kind of thing that would probably make Seesmic the very lively place it needs to be.

Here’s Feldman:

And here’s the video of our ATD/D BBQ and Rodeo, which focuses a lot on the marinated lamb:

Do you need me to draw you the bright straight line from Skype to Facebook or can you see it all by yourself?

OK, for those who refuse to live in a little place I like to call reality, let’s review the news coming out of eBay yesterday regarding its 2005 acquisition of Skype for the then unheard-of price of $2.6 billion.

The Internet auction giant declared the purchase of the once hot online telephone start-up a dud yesterday, taking an asset-impairment charge of $1.43 billion for the deal.

In addition, Skype founder and CEO Niklas Zennström was out. The move, said eBay in a filing, represented “updated long-term financial outlook for Skype.”

Quickie translation: Major buyer’s remorse.

While Zennström said he was “proud” of Skype’s performance of late (it has grown its users and revenue), the fact of the matter is eBay could not spin straw into gold with the acquisition and make the kind of money its lofty economics required for the once-hot VOIP leader. Thus, eBay only had to also fork over one-third of its $1.7 billion payout to investors, too.

While many were saying all this was due to who bought Skype–maybe it was eBay’s fault and other potential acquirers could have done better–Skype was once thought of as a giant killer in the telephony world, with many going on and on about its vast potential.

Sound familiar? Before Facebook sky-high valuation fans go nuts, I know there is a difference between the economics of a Web phone service and that of an ad-based, possibly target-rich interactive online environment.

But there was an awful lot of hype, I mean, hope back in 2005 that Skype could easily turn into a massive moneymaker by selling a wide range of goods and services beyond its core Internet calls offering.

Because advertisers and other services could target its motivated and highly trackable users, went the story, that meant the possibility of ladling on more revenue and profits.

In fact, by leveraging Skype’s exploding popularity, eBay had hoped to add premium offerings like conference calls and links to its own vast networks of sellers on its flagship auction site. There was a user-generated Yellow Pages and even an offering called Skype Prime that allowed callers to charge a variety of services.

All good ideas that just did not pan out with quite the results expected, all directly due to the exorbitant sum overpaid for Skype.

Revenues for Skype were only $90 million in the most recent quarter (out of eBay’s overall $1.83 billion), despite its adding 75 million more users since the acquisition to total 220 million.

As I wrote about Facebook’s talks with a variety of investors that value it at upward of $10 billion, Skype was a story about the difference between potential and actual when faced with the real-world difficulties of making a popular Web site into a truly profitable and sustainable business.

I am not sure how I managed to get to be the little rain cloud at the Facebook parade, but the simple act of questioning the possibility that it might not make the kind of money its cheerleaders envision, especially in light of the Skype write-down, seems prudent.

We all know it’s admirable–even astonishing–that its founder Mark Zuckerberg and his small team have grown the terrific and vibrant social-networking service into a 40 million-plus user base and growing with plenty of promise with regard to new kinds of advertising paradigm.

But the business, as it stands today, only has about $30 million in profits on $150 million in revenue.

More importantly, half that revenue comes from a sweetheart guaranteed revenue deal with its ad-partner Microsoft, which still is a non-economic wash for the software giant more interested in planting a flag and paying for some pricey education in the social-networking sector.

That has not stopped Microsoft from offering Facebook, according to sources close to the company, investment dollars in the hundreds of millions for a small stake.

Said those familiar with the most recent offer, such an investment would include a possible right to buy the company should Facebook decide an all-out acquisition is the way to go (doubtlessly a Microsoft preference).

Sources note that Microsoft is now blowing hot and cold about such a deal, which is being championed by CEO Steve Ballmer and Chief Software Architect Ray Ozzie, who lends the Seattle behemoth some much-needed Silicon Valley cred.

At Facebook, Zuckerberg is key to the talks, helped by such advisers as VPs Owen Van Natta and Matt Cohler and CFO Gideon Yu (whom we like to call “Death Cat” for his uncanny ability to cuddle up to hot Internet start-ups, much like that nursing-home feline who can sense death).

According to sources, Microsoft remains obsessed with keeping rival Google out of the picture and positing that the search part of the Facebook phenomenon is where the real gold is located.

While adding more robust search to the site seems fine, Facebook execs do not consider it a killer app and are perplexed by Ballmer’s laser focus on it in recent talks.

“We don’t want to be taken in by the siren song of search,” said one.

That’s especially true given the engaged nature of its users while on the site with, well, the site. After all, you don’t really want to search when you are hard at work stalking your “friends” on Facebook.

All kidding aside, that kind of motivated user is what has kept suitors lining up, including solo visits to Facebook HQ in Palo Alto, Calif., by Yahoo co-founder and CEO Jerry Yang (inquiring about doing some sort of deal–after its botched acquisition effort from last year–such as taking over Facebook’s international ad-serving business).

So, too, has Google come on by, not necessarily to invest in or buy Facebook, but to look more closely at a variety of ad and apps plays on the service (and, you have to guess, to drive Microsoft bonkers).

And others in droves, such as a recent visit by Viacom head Philippe Dauman, who just wanted to say hello to the Facebookers.

In all this hubbub, one has to wonder what Facebook wants and needs?

Here’s my educated and reported guess:

1. A redo of its ad deal with Microsoft, getting even more guaranteed dollars and more latitude over its own sales efforts. An extension would be fine, I guess, but perhaps not, given interest from others to sign up Facebook and make friends with it.

2. An international ad partner, although I don’t expect Facebook to hand over the store here in this critical arena for itself. While the site’s U.S. growth has been strong, its international aspirations will be key to its long-term success.

Possible partners here are obvious: Yahoo, Google, Microsoft.

3. An investment on its terms and not necessarily with Microsoft or Google or whatever giant media company that comes calling with glad hands and lots of shiny baubles to offer.

What Facebook must do is evaluate which partner actually benefits its goals of further growing its member base here and abroad, gives it access to new marketing opportunities and forks over the unencumbered cash and advice to create or buy new assets it needs to continually improve itself.

4. Zuckerberg has got to be looking at what happened over there at rival MySpace and probably wants to do things a little differently. While MySpace has grown a lot since its purchase by News Corp., it’s an open secret its founders Chris DeWolfe and Tom Anderson think they sold too soon and now are angling to be better compensated.

In addition, it’s nicer to be in charge of your own fate, if you can pull it off. Because even if Microsoft or any other buyer promises total freedom, when you sell (especially to an already public company), you instantly become an employee–a well-paid one, to be certain–and your fate is no longer in your hands.

And, like Skype’s Zennström, that fate can be “updated” once performance falls off. Which it will.

5. I think that Facebook is well positioned to stay independent and not sell at all, although it is clear it thinks taking big money is a good idea.

I am not so sure it is, for a lot of reasons (not the least of which are the complications now surrounding the valuation of its stock options–Section 409A!–and the ability to attract talent with a good package).

But if Facebook can pull it off in a way that gives it running room and relative freedom, I can hardly imagine it will resist.

“We’re not stupid over here, we want the right deal at the right time that fits into the right thing for us,” said one exec there.

Right.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

I like Mike. Volpi, that is, Joost’s new CEO.

Pictured here, the 40-year-old longtime tech exec is a nice choice to run the moderately hyped online video television site.

But I will admit it–I have not been gung-ho on the prospect of Joost–which I have called a potentially “messy control freak of a service.”

I was teasing, of course, but do have doubts about the company–founded by the well-known geek duo Janus Friis and Niklas Zennström–as being too closed and destination oriented, as well as playing in a very crowded field.

In addition, Joost needs massive amounts of cooperation from the very restrictive mandarins of Hollywood. And we all know the amount of leadership they have brought as all content has gone digital–some sum much less than zero.

By the way, Friis and Zennström are the pair who disrupted the phone industry with Skype and also created the controversial peer-to-peer file-sharing service Kazaa, used by many to illegally download–yes–copyrighted entertainment content.

But now in the age of fear and loathing in Hollywood for Google-owned YouTube comes Joost, which aims to deliver a TV experience on the Web with high-quality professional content by using a special player you download. It is free, supported by advertising.

To do this, Joost nabbed $45 million in funding in May from Silicon Valley’s famed Sequoia Capital (backers of Yahoo, YouTube and Google, among others) and early Skype funder Index Ventures, as well as CBS, Viacom and the wealthy Hong Kong investor Li Ka-shing.

It has struck deals to offer content, using a peer-to-peer technology distribution system, from CBS, as well as Turner and Warner Bros. and Sony. It has also picked up a slate of big-time advertisers like Coca-Cola. Also, unlike television, it also gives users a bunch of interactive options like instant messaging while viewing and news feeds.

So far, Hollywood likes Joost because, hmm, it’s not copyright-defying YouTube.

But the start-up is not alone. For example, NBC Universal and News Corp. will soon launch a new Web video service called Hulu, in a reported $100 million effort. Also, there’s Veoh, backed by former Hollywood bigwigs Michael Eisner and, recently, Tom Freston.

(At least Joost has this going for it–not such a dopey name as those two! In fact, I like the name a lot.)

And it seems as if a new video site pops up constantly, as every traditional content provider tries to figure out a strategy, even as less cooperative techies like YouTube and Apple’s iTunes grow ever more popular.

So what better place to interview Volpi, a longtime Cisco exec (who was considered the heir apparent to CEO and Chairman John Chambers), than on the trendy Asia de Cuba patio at the Mondrian Hotel on Sunset Strip.

While Volpi has the tech cred, he is also pretty smooth for Silicon Valley, possessing a bit of Hollywood style and looking hipper than your average nerd (it’s obviously due to his Italian-born roots).

Well-liked and respected in the tech industry, the mechanical engineering grad from Stanford was raised in Japan, where his journalist mother covered a wide range of issues.

Yesterday in Los Angeles to make the rounds at the studios, trying to explain what Joost will do for them, Volpi talked with me about everything from Joost’s prospects to widgetmania to how you create great online content.

He also insulted me, calling me hyped (that’s the digital pot calling the Web kettle black!).

Here’s the first video with the second posted here:

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

Joost threw a party in North Hollywood (which is really closer to Burbank than Hollywood) Tuesday at the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences’s Leonard H. Goldenson Theatre for a small throng of Hollywood folks, most of whom looked to be about 21 years old collectively.

(You can just imagine a big Hollywood muckety-muck telling his lowly recent college grad of an assistant to go to the party, because “we gotta be up on this digital stuff you young people like.”)

It was an interesting party for me for a lot of reasons, some of which had nothing to do with Joost, but mostly because it represents yet another foray into Hollywood for the Internet Story, The Sequel. (Also see the video after the jump.)

In the last go-round, there were all sorts of empty alliances struck between techies and the entertainment industry that went precisely nowhere–or as they say here, into perpetual turnaround.

But with broadband penetration improving significantly and the explosion of video on the Web, the best example being the spectacular growth of YouTube, a new dance has begun.

Read more »

It will be nice to see Danny Rimer back in Silicon Valley this week.

Now London-based, the former SV investment bank analyst and venture capitalist is here for a lunch hosted today by Index Ventures, the juice behind Joost and also a previous little start-up you might recall called Skype.

“From Index Ventures perspective, the world is much smaller and flatter now,” said the invite to the event, which will feature the entire technology investment team of the venture firm, which operates out of both London, Jersey and Geneva.

“Five years ago,” the invite continued, “it felt Herculean to have a small, globally focused business and, today, it is commonplace.”

That, in fact, is the one thing that has struck the 36-year-old Rimer as the difference from when he left California in 2002. He worked here first at Hambrecht & Quist covering then-nascent Web companies (and where I first met him) and then as a fledgling VC at the short-lived Barksdale Group, whose fortunes were buffeted by the first dot-com bust.

“If anything has changed, it is that the Web is really now completely a global phenomenon, which is hard to sometimes see while you are in the middle of Silicon Valley,” said Rimer. “I think I have the best job taking the Silicon Valley model and applying it in totally underpenetrated geographies.”

Read more »

To: Mike Volpi, spanking new Joost CEO

From: Kara Swisher, seen-it-all-before journalist

Re: Five quick questions for you on taking the new job at the trendy and well-funded online video service

1. Is it just me or does Joost feel like a service only a Hollywood executive could love, with its big-ticket content and stricter programming than the Web is used to, as I kind of implied here?

2. You’re a tech guy, so can you fix the glitchiness and regular instances of crashing in the beta before it gets out there? Maybe that’s OK for shaggier services like Skype and Kazaa, also founded by Joost’s founders, Janus Friis and Niklas Zennström, but watching premium video requires a more reliable service.

3. You bought a lot of companies at Cisco (really, 70?) as its mergers-and-acquisitions guy, so what’s your strategy for handling all your partners now (like Time Warner, Viacom and CBS) and those who are sure to come? Because it feels to me that it might be like wrangling cats.

4. I like you a lot already for saying to the New York Times in this article that “traditional television as we know it is gradually going to go away.” Um, when exactly (and I am sure your investor CBS liked that comment a lot)?

5. OK, so you’re not YouTube with all its messy user-generated content, and you’re not a television network with all its control-freak mannerisms, but I am hoping that does not mean you are a messy control freak of a service. OK, that’s a statement and not a question–so, let me rephrase: Are you a messy control freak of a service?

Just asking.